I’m a Thorpewood resident and really DON’T want any cameras on my road. I’m furious we haven’t been consulted. There are other ways to deal with traffic issues. Big brother?—no thanks and no more!!! I’m telling the council, no thanks.
Emma obviously feels very strongly about this. Would it be against the forum rules (which I always seem in danger of breaching) to ask whether she has a personal interest, e.g. because of where she lives or because she has connections with one or other of the schools? It would be helpful to know where she’s ‘coming from’.
I think we should view any posts here as having some personal interest. There are very few people that don’t have some form of personal bias.
1 Like
Robin, I value my anonymity and have deliberately not used my real name and would ask that you respect that right to post anonymously without disclosing who I am.
I think from my posts you could deduce that I have a connection with Elliot Bank and that in my opinion where I live will be negatively affected by this scheme. I want the best for EB kids when they walk down the road but I also want the same for Holy Trinity kids.
I have tried where possible to do two things:
Ask the right questions and where possible argue with some evidence.
I asked the question about whether the one way system was permanent when you had assumed it would be for 2 hours. I pushed that question and it took 11 days but we got the answer that it would be 24 hours a day.
I have included two photos of Holy Trinity to evidence that the main entrance to Holy Trinity is on Thorpewood Avenue and the bottleneck caused if cars are parked on both sides.
I am biased but would expect people to use their personal judgement in assessing anything I say.
2 Likes
I look forward to learning precisely the criteria for selecting these two streets. Not clear why we are waiting, unless the decisions were really about social or political expediency, and the ‘evidence’ is being compiled post facto.
Thank you for demonstrating my point, I owe you one.
Just to be clear, I am not in any way trying to get behind your mask. Whatever one might feel personally about the rights and wrongs of being able to post anonymously on a forum like this, one has to follow the rules.
1 Like
Thanks for all the responses. @EmmaJ I will speak to officers about what data we can publish (I have previously pushed for the criteria/ data being used to decide on healthy neighbourhoods to be made public because I generally think that more transparency is better) and I will let you know. The reasons for not being able to do this, though, often have to do with officer capacity, as it involves quite a lot of work.
Please do continue to share feedback with us, both here & by email (my email is cllr_sophie.davis@lewisham.gov.uk). As you do, though, I’d appreciate if we can bear in mind that all of us engaging in these forums (including councillors!) do so in good faith, and with the benefit of the community in mind. This is also true of council officers, who are hard-working public servants, working under difficult conditions and doing their best to serve the community.
Finally, to reiterate: this is a trial; we are listening to your feedback as part of an ongoing consultation process; any final decision will be subject to a formal consultation.
10 Likes
Thanks @SophieDavis , this is a very positive move.
It hopefully will address the concern that the majority of residents will be negatively affected for the sake of 50 households but hopefully we are all proved wrong. This is probably more about the effect of a permanent one way system on half the road than a school street which is only for a small amount of time. A complete road plan was considered initially but now it is only half because of money, were the criteria re-applied against doing it for half the road with the impacts and benefits considered including value for money. I think people do ask that question and anything that answers this in a transparent way will stop people thinking they have no voice.
Hopefully the council have considered this but it would be good if you could get information about the impact of changing the narrow bottleneck on Thorpewood Avenue to be the only exit for traffic. It will now handle twice the traffic. This was not able to handle traffic pre-covid in a two way manner as expected. It handles resident, commuter, teacher, pools and shopper traffic and parking. It is not as busy now because of Covid but when this ends and in the likely event that The Bridge closes permanently, it will attract all the swimming traffic from Forest Hill and Sydenham especially in the evenings and Saturday mornings. I was there when the Swimming Pool rebuild was discussed and the council officials expected 100% of customers to be car free which is why no parking was provided. This has not turned out to be correct and the the answer to feedback about the parking issue this generated has been to ask residents to pay a few hundred pounds so they can park outside their houses.
I think it is great that you are engaging on this forum but I do feel that this represents communication between people who have access to technology. I think the primary means of communication to the residents is the letter that was posted to residents’ houses.
This omits two pieces of key information:
The creation of a permanent one way system for half the road, this needs to be clear from the text and also needs to be put on the map/graphic
The second thing is that the scheme is temporary and subject to a formal consultation and only then does it become permanent.
Most people know the green reasoning so what is really important to people are the details. Is the council planning another letter to residents to include these details so that everybody knows?
Finally, thanks again for the positive and listening post. We are all grateful for the work the council/councillors/officers do and want to make sure it best serves the community.
1 Like
@EmmaJ I’ve emailed officers to raise all of these points:
- I’ve asked about what data we can share/ make public
- I’ve asked that we monitor the impact of Pools traffic (when the Pools are eventually able to re-open!)
- I’ve asked what we can do to communicate these two points to other residents as, you’re right, many people don’t access this forum. If we’re not able to send a second batch of letters, I’ve suggested putting signs up.
Another point, which has been raised with us separately is making alternatives to cars easier to use. As a council, we do quite a lot to help people who want to cycle (get in touch separately if you want to find out about that) but I’m keen to look into what more we can do to make public transport more accessible (as someone who uses buses with a toddler + buggy, I’m very aware of this) - we’ll liaise with TfL about this.
I will update when I hear back.
Finally, I know in the past meetings have been organised part-way through the scheme with officers & councillors for residents to share feedback. I’d be keen to do this, if our officers have the time (v much COVID dependent).
Sophie
4 Likes
Announcement yesterday from Sadie Khan that a new City Hall body will be starting in the new year to identify heavily polluted school areas paving the way for further road closures in the capital.
Hopefully Holy Trinity School children will get the same protection from car pollution as Eliot Bank School children will be getting at the beginning December
1 Like
I think it would be very hard. There has been an application for a school street and it is written down now that one end deserves it, one doesn’t. It would be hard to backtrack.
It would then be time to say sorry you know we got all that money from you, we were confused. The bottom was busier than the top back then but now with the traffic from 2 schools and all residents in the area going through the small bottleneck outside the school it is even busier, can we now get more money for it?
Unfortunately I think there would be many other school streets in the queue that have recieved no money that would expect to get something first such as Haseltine before seconds can be given to a school that wasn’t seen as deserving the first time round.
I hope I am wrong.
Interesting discussion on ITV’s The Late Debate. The Lewisham East MP Janet Daby was asked to comment on why they got the Lower Traffic Neighbourhood blocked streets in Hither Green wrong. The concensus from all the politicians seemed to be to consult with residents before, during and after rather than just build these schemes.
2 Likes
Hi all,
A quick update:
I spoke to our lead officer about communicating to residents who don’t use this forum. There is an FAQ page, specifically about school streets, on the Commonplace website - https://lewishamschoolstreets.commonplace.is/schemes/proposals/frequently-asked-questions/details - she will add a couple of questions raised here to this page (e.g. how the schools were chosen, temporary traffic orders and consultations, the one way systems and monitoring) - please point it out to residents you might speak to. She also thought putting posters up by the school was a good idea. I’m following up to ensure they get done.
I haven’t had an answer on the data point yet (I expect this takes more looking into/ approvals etc) - will follow up with the Cabinet member if I don’t.
Sophie
2 Likes
Thanks Sophie, I think the message about the school street is out there and EB have a good newsletter so the 50% of parents who are using the TA entrance will find out.
I think the message that is not out there is the One-Way Street I think the letter to residents was not clear and it has just been copied and pasted to the CommonPlace website. Anybody looking sees the words Timed Closure and then sees some times and will assume it it is between certain times. It doesn’t convey the message that the top half is permanently closed to cars who want to travel up to Kirkdale. Sorry to sound like a broken record but it is unclear.
Are there any plans to put in signposting at the bottom of Thorpewood to let people know that it is no longer a through road, whatever the usual is Residents Access Only or No Through Road?
1 Like
@SophieDavis, Any updates on these points which you said you would raise on the 5th of November.
Can you also add to these points, how you can reduce the impact of traffic/pollution displaced to Holy Trinity as it is outside the school street while being on the same road as the school street? I know the answer has been given that it is up to the school to act and it doesn’t have the money but does the council not have some duty of care if it moves pollution from one school to another?
Firstly I’d like to say that I have lived in the area for 54 years. Living in Round Hill and using a vehicle for work, this is going to make my working day longer. A small inconvenience if it were to make the street safer for children going to school, but this is clearly not the case.
Most of the main points are covered in the thread - Why not Holy Trinity (ridiculous to say the entrance is on Dartmouth rd and number of students), why not timed (as originally indicated). This is really going to inconvenience me every working day, and I am willing to fight this with likeminded residents. I will now, instead of passing one school (Eliot Bank) have to pass two schools (Holy Trinity and Kelvin Grove) and wait in traffic heading up Kirkdale (which in early morning can be very heavy). How can that be beneficial?
The whole issue outside Eliot Bank is caused by parents double parking dropping children off (very dangerous). Thanks to them I am being punished. I would have had to accept if it was timed, but never to be able to turn left is just a step too far.
And encouraging kids to cycle to school - well we should be getting some Olympic champions in a few years time! What 7 year old can negotiate Thorpewood Avenue? Or Kirkdale? Or Sydenham Hill?
5 Likes
The pole and signage that’s been installed on the pavement at the bottom of our drive means we can’t reverse on. My husband had to drive on forwards today and that was hard enough a manoeuvre with no traffic and nothing parked opposite. We can’t imagine how we will be able to safely manoeuvre to reverse off onto Kirkdale, into traffic, especially with the traffic increase this divisive decision will cause here.
It’s a quite legal dropped kerb that’s always worked well and was clearly installed when the house was built. Quite apart from Lewisham’s complete disregard for road safety, this is a Conservstion Area and there’s a grass verge just a few metres away which already has a pole with school signage on it to which this could easily have been added. It would have been safer and cheaper for council tax payers too.
3 Likes
What evidence do I need having lived in the area all my life (48 years in Round Hill, 3 years in Derby Hill and the rest in SE23) that this is yes, inconvenient for me. It will create more emissions from traffic leaving Round Hill FACT. Any traffic leaving Round Hill will go past two schools to get to Sydenham hill FACT. No resident of Round Hill will use Dartmouth Road to get to the south circular (to head towards central London) as it moves a lot slower. This information is gained from experience living in the area, not ‘even without evidence’.
What’s happened here is that allowing children to go to Eliot Bank from a wide area (?) and drop their children by car has caused the road to be altered. I drive up Thorpewood Avenue and have parents just stop on the corner with no regard for the danger of their children. Yet I and others (especially Round Hill) pay the penalty by being effectively penned in with one exit. If Eliot Bank is over subscribed and such a popular school, surely it should be filled by local children? Holy Trinity is less popular, so perhaps should be the school that needs help with dropping off by car? Tackle the issue at source (ie those parents dropping by car) not by making the traffic worse for the majority of local residents. I remember seeing a camera car outside the school on a number of occasions. Surely a camera installed permanently would have been cheaper in tackling these irresponsible parents?
For the record I am a London Taxi Driver. I have a contract with a company in central London where I need to get a short notice. It already takes me an hour to do 8 miles in the morning, and this will increase by at least 10 minutes. That’s around an hour a week, and something I would have accepted for a timed period to make it safe for children.
One thing I predict is that, not evidence based as yet, it will be a nightmare getting out onto Dartmouth Rd. This often gets backed up so any traffic turning left from Thorpewood Avenue will be waiting for the lights at the junction with London Road to change! Traffic will increase on Derby Hill and Derby Hill crescent (which in places is impassable by two vehicles). I hope I’m wrong. If my job is impacted, and I potentially lose the contract if delayed, I will be taking this further. How, I don’t know, but this is the biggest change affecting local traffic that has occurred in my 54years.
2 Likes
There is evidence that it will cause extra pollution to local children and local residents and extra expense which I have posted in another thread Invisible killer: how one girl's tragic death could change the air pollution story .
The simple facts are:
The one way street will cost local residents up to £100 extra a year.
It will lengthen the journey for local residents by 1Km.
It will increase pollution in the local area by an extra million grams of CO2.
The school street actively discriminates against Holy Trinity by doubling the pollution going past it.
I have illustrated below the distance of classrooms in both Holy Trinity and Eliot Bank to Thorpewood Avenue. HT classrooms are 5 metres from the road while EB classrooms are 58 metres from the road.
The council proposes to double the pollution for kids sitting in classrooms 5 metres from the road for the benefit of kids sitting in classrooms 58 metres from the road. I don’t think we need the expertise of council officers to say that doesn’t sound fair or right.
Eliot Bank Classrooms 58 metres from the road
Holy Trinity Classrooms 5 metres from the road
4 Likes
Again, you have succinctly demonstrated the fact of the matter.
1 Like